This is reprehensible:
Jury Duty at a Rape Trial? Acquit!
so is this…
so the next time someone tells you (perhaps talks down to you is more appropriate) that they are a part of a social justice movement and act as if they own truth and justice™–maybe you should start asking some hard questions instead of just accepting their lingo. If it seems like they are willing to throw innocent people under the bus because of their “agenda,” you may very well be dealing with a bigot as well as a dangerous person. You just might want to distance yourself from them. Probably the best for your emotional health….
stonerwithaboner 
http://dennisthepeasant.typepad.com/dennis_the_peasant/2008/04/amanda-steps-in.html
I find that many partisans don’t have the first clue about their own agenda. Despite the glut of information with which we are pounded on a daily basis, we are woefully uninformed.
I agree with the sentiment that if a system of law is so corrupted as to give the prosecution an unfair advantage in certain types of cases that gives them the power to keep the defense from showing necessary relevant information to the jury, then jury nullification is an ethically correct way to deal with those cases.
As a juror, how can you know if the prosecution has used their unfair advantage in your case? The entire purpose of the corrupt rules is that you can’t know! So the question becomes one of probability – how likely is it that the defendant is getting a raw deal?
Elam (& company) has decided that the probability in rape cases is too high to be able to overcome reasonable doubt of the presumption of innocence of the defendant. That’s not throwing innocents under the bus, as you put it; quite the opposite.